04 ATTACHMENT 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Extension, but the increase in intensity is the same. The Draft EIR also explains that this impact would be subject m the same mitigation measure as under the Project. Because this increase and its corresponding mitigation have already been idemified in the Draft EIR, it does not constitute an "increase in the severity of an environmemal impac[" that requires recirculation. C. Tmpact TR-3. CtLIP Analyris of Freeways and Arterials. The Final EIR indicates chat the Concurrent Extension would result in a^ unacceptable level of service at two segments that would remain at an acceptable level of service under Deferred Extension. (i) Eastbound segment of I-580 The Final EIR states that Concurrent Extension would result in an unacceptable level of service on the Eastbound segment of I-580 between North Livermore Avenue and First Street in the PM peak hour, but would be acceptable under Deferred Extension. (Final EIR, page 3- 24.) However, the Final EIR draws this conclusion by assuming Concurrent Extension as the constam and then comparing the effects of building the Project to the effects of not building the Project. (See, Final EIR, pages 3-25 and 3-26.) Because it does not assume Project buildout as the constant and then compare the effects of the Concurrent Extension to the effects of the Deferred Extension, this analysis does not reveal a Concurrent Extension Impact. In fact, when the correct comparison is made, Table 3.1-6 of the Final EIR and Table 42 of the Staples Ranch Traflc Report show that the impact of the Project is the same with both the Deferred Extension and the Concurrent Extension (an LOS of F with a V/C of 1.00 and 1.01, respectively). (Final EIR, page 3- 26.) (ii) Concurrent Extension Impact Number 4 A comparison of the Final EIR analysis of the Concurrent Exrension to the Staples Ranch Traffic Study indicates that Sconeridge Drive East of Santa Rita Road in the AM and PM peak hour degrades from an LOS of D with the Deferred Extension to an unacceptable LOS of F with the Concurrent Extension. (Final EIR, page 3-24; Staples Ranch Traffic Report, fables 41 and 42.) The Staples Ranch Traffic Report draws the same conclusion with regard to conditions under the Ice Cemer Altemative. (Staples Ranch Traffic Report, Tables 41 and 42). However, as explained below, the Draft EIR has already assessed ehis impact as part of its analysis of the Existing Specific Plan Alternative. The Draft EIR concludes that development pursuant to the Existing Specific Plan Alternative would no[ resuh in any new significant impacts to freeway or arterial segments because the Alameda County Congestion Management Authority uses adopted specific plans in their planning process. (Draft EIR, page 5-22). The freeway and arterial impacts of the Existing Specific Plan are therefore already assumed in Alameda County's congestion management plans. (Id.) The freeway and arterial impacts of the Project and the Ice Center Alternative with the Concurrent Extension will be less than those of the Existing SpcciGc Plan Alternative because the Existing Specific Plan Alternative assumes the Concurrent Extension and generates approximarely 1.5 times more traffic than the Project during the AM and PM peak hours, and nearly twice as many total daily trips. (Draft EIR, pages 5- l6, 5-22.) The Existing Specific Plan Alternative also SA453'!3?953~5